Slashdot Mirror
Do Retailers Often Screen User Reviews?
Mechanist.tm writes "I recently purchased a NAS from a well-known online computer component shop. I have purchased several items from the website and have never had much trouble before. That was until I realized what I had bought was a terrible NAS. All the reviews on the site from users seemed very good. After a little research, it became clear that the product in question was indeed terrible. After finding the product pretty much useless for its intended purpose, I proceeded to write a review for it on the website to inform other would-be buyers. After about a week, I noticed that the review never made it up there, so I wrote another one just in case. After several attempts to leave a negative review for the product, I realized that the website was screening reviews and only posting the ones that made the products look good. All the reviews on the website are positive; I've only found one at less than 3 out of 5 stars. Is this legal? Ethically speaking, it's wrong, and it's intentionally misleading to the customer. Is there a good place to report behavior like this? How common is this among online retailers who provide user reviews?"
I agree. This only stops when you name names and shame the bastards into transparency.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The fact that they manipulate what customer feedback they are willing to show in order to increase sales is enough for me to take my business elsewhere, and there are plenty of trustworthy businesses that don't censor user reviews.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
...when you're trying to expose unethical behavior or deceptive practices, the phrase "a well-known online computer component shop" is hollow and flaccid.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
I usually look for negative reviews first when considering a product. I will google for "$product sucks". I try and see why people think it sucks. If I don't see any negative reviews, I know that no one is actually buying the product.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Yeah. We should do a Microsoft article so we can show the world how shitty they are and make they bastards straighten up!
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
I would consider it illegal advertising. The site misleads customers to believe they are reading actual user reviews (ALL reviews), which is simply not true. It's misleading and deceptive.
If I found a site like that, I'd report them to consumeraffairs.org, FTC.gov, and any other site I can think of which screens companies. Hopefully the FTC would act to fine that company, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
a well-known online computer component shop
Yea, it is absolutely absurd to have made this post and not identify the seller in question. The poster questions if a seller can get away with this, and them demonstrates that they can by failing to even say who they are or what the bad product is. The whole post is extremely pointless. If the original review was this void of information then maybe there is an alternate reason it was never accepted for listing.
At least we can see that the Slashdot editors can not be accused of editing, or making informed choices about which stories to post.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
There is a conflict of interest but making this type of thing illegal would be a slippery slope.
A slipper slope to what? A market where consumers are properly protected from corporate abuse?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
+1
Newegg even lets you display only the bad reviews. I've also seen reviews suggesting you purchase products elsewhere when shipping might be an issue. It doesn't seem like Newegg does much screening at all. Probably has any prices listed with dollar signs stripped and any URL's or competitors stripped automatically and then goes with that.
One thing to keep in mind when reading reviews at any site though is that the ratio of positive to negative reviews differs wildly. Websites that make the review process difficult are likely only going to get reviews from people very strongly opinionated and probably have a higher negative ratio. Websites that make the review process very easy will have more reviews.
I don't get it; they resolved the issue, so that you had nothing negative to post in the end. Let's say that instead of posting the negative review, you had contacted them of the problem to see if they would resolve it. If they hadn't, you would have posted the review; if they had, you wouldn't have, since there was no problem. The latter is what happened.
Why is this illegal? Why is this any different than a commercial from a movie pulling only the good quotes from Roger Ebert and Gene Shalit? The retailer is under no obligation to publish unfavorable reviews on their own website, whether written by professional reviewers or the public at large. Assuming the company is based in the US, from a First Amendment standpoint, the government cannot force them to publish bad reviews on their own website.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
They cover that in the TOS that nobody ever reads.
Why is this illegal?
Don't know if it's illegal or not but it should be. They are misrepresenting the site as presenting all reviews, not just ones that they approve. That's fraud with material financial consequences.
Given that Mechanist.tm wasn't aware of this they probably are misrepresenting the reviews.
If they made clear that the site is not representative of all customer reviews then there should be no legal problem though it's still shady and I for one would be shopping elsewhere.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
Because unless they state they are only publishing positive reviews, it is misleading to show that all feedback from "users" is positive. It is deceptive to filter out the negatives as it misleadingly portrays the product as good based of what is supposedly unbiased user feedback as opposed to vendor advertising.
For advertising, yes, of course you only show positive reviews, it stands to reason to choose what supports the product (movie etc).
"If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton
Thinking that something "should be illegal" is not particularly close to it being illegal. It sounds to you that you are just saying that it is unethical. I agree with that, but the point was that a prior poster said he "considered this to be illegal", and the parent asked why it was illegal.
Saying it is unethical does not answer that question. You have to actually find a law that says it is illegal.
Likewise, asaul says that it is illegal because it is misleading. Again, he doesn't cite any law against being misleading.
Even blatantly lying is not, in general, illegal. There are cases where it is, but those are specific cases; there is no general law against lying. (Mom's law doesn't count here. :-))
There are laws against false advertising, which are probably the closest things to applicable ones here. But the standards applied to that in practice tend to be awfully lenient. (Heck, as far as I can tell, darn near all advertising attempts to give false impressions in at least some way. Apparently the lawyers don't use the same standards that I do, since I don't see darn near all advertising slapped down.)
>>>Why is this illegal?
Because the law says that illegal advertising is a crime. So is advertising a price of, say $9.99, and then ringing it up as 19.99 at the register. (My former employer JCPenney got a huge fine for that.) So is making claims that are deceptive or misleading (see the lawsuits about 100MPG magnets for cars). I surmise that if this NAC company went before a judge, he would say the use of only positive reviews while leading the customer to think he/she is seeing ALL reviews, is deceptive and misleading.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The question is whether the purchaser reasonably expected all reviews to be present. Since it's an online site where they could submit their own review, unless there was a notice to the effect of "we filter out reviews we don't like" it's possible to make the argument.
On a small scale, the poster could sue the retailer. On a large scale, it may indeed be false advertising.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Because you said it yourself, a commercial is a commercial and people know it's a commercial. When it comes to review people assume it's honest non-filtered opinion of consumers. If you pick what to publish or edit passages you're filtering.
Why is this illegal?
Don't know if it's illegal or not but it should be. They are misrepresenting the site as presenting all reviews, not just ones that they approve. That's fraud with material financial consequences.
Given that Mechanist.tm wasn't aware of this they probably are misrepresenting the reviews.
If they made clear that the site is not representative of all customer reviews then there should be no legal problem though it's still shady and I for one would be shopping elsewhere.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
Do you tell potential employers about every major mistake you've made in previous jobs or about the times you've slacked off or skipped out for one reason or another? If not, then you're not making it clear that your resume, cover letter, and job interviews aren't fully representative of your prior work. And as you said, it's fraud with material consequences. How about stuff that you're trying to sell like a car or a home?
No one gives all the details about something they're trying to sell regardless of whether it's a piece of electronics, a car, or a home. The phrase caveat emptor has been around for at least 2000 years and probably a lot longer than that. As such, I don't think anyone should trust the reviews on a retailer's site entirely.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Do you tell potential employers about every major mistake you've made in previous jobs or about the times you've slacked off or skipped out for one reason or another? If not, then you're not making it clear that your resume, cover letter, and job interviews aren't fully representative of your prior work.
Do you think that the interviewers think it is? Do you think that if you read a persons resume that it would be a fair assessment of their past work history and experience?
Or would you accept that everybody that submits a resume is obviously biased and reporting on themselves is not a full and complete history. Since they have to include references and contact info for their previous jobs it seems that they are by default not trusted to be a complete and balanced source by themselves. So your example stands as it's own opposition. People do not tell about themselves when trying to impress someone to get a job and everybody knows it and expects no less than embellishment. Hence they ask for outside verification as well.
How about stuff that you're trying to sell like a car or a home?
If you are trying to sell a car or a home there are third parties that are expected to inspect these objects to ensure your statements are true, it's not expected that you are an expert in all the areas that are important in these cases. You are also judged on your trustworthiness in these cases. It's not the same as if the person was to filter the results of a termite inspection and only report the good parts, or if they altered the carfax report on the car. That's why there are these third party services, because people are not expected to be unbiased in their account of their own worth or the products they are trying to sell.
Companies are a different matter.
There are quite a few laws in place that people trust are being obeyed. It is illegal to advertise falsely that your product cures a disease or treats an illness.
It is illegal to advertise a product of some value and then once the customer is ready to purchase it, switch to selling them an inferior product. (as a practice)
There are many other laws about advertising because the business world needs trust to operate. And while it doesn't create the level playing field it means to, it does put into the minds of the populous that they can trust to some extent the claims of retailers. There is a big difference that may not be in the front of their minds though. That there is a big difference between an acknowledged advertisement on TV and a retailers own Website.
To advertise on TV or even place banners through Google adds, the retailer must meet certain criteria. Small print, disclaimers, relevant details that go with their claims of a certain product. That's why we all see things like, "results not typical" "your results may vary" and "see retailer for details". These things don't help sales but they are required when advertising a claim. If they claim something without so much as an asterisk and it is not true, they could be in trouble. But here's the problem. If they have a Website that promotes their product and only has the most glowing reviews but does not claim that the reviews are representative or inclusive or even unpaid. It's not a claim that's false. They don't have to say that the reviews are anything, they could be just marketing people typing the company agenda. And we assume they are real reviews since they allow us to submit them as well. There are no laws in this area. they can delete your review and unless they use your name and change the words, it's within the law. It's a problem with what we expect in one area not applying to another. Like copyright and patents, most people don't know where one stops and the other begins. And I think that's the fault of the ones who are in change of the laws. We should learn them, but we should also not be expected to have law degrees to do so. Like anything that effects us all so much, there should be a brief attached that e
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.